[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 19:27:25 UTC 2015
I think that unless we prohibit it, it is an inherent right of the Board
(and management) to explore and potentially adopt other methods and/or
providers for carrying out ICANN's responsibilities relating to the IANA
Functions. It may be as simple as some small (in size, not in effect)
drafting fixes that make it clear that this is the only path to explore or
adopt such changes.
Right now it appears highly unlikely that the Board and management would
ever want to explore a radical change in how the IANA Functions are carried
out relative to ICANN. Indeed, the emphasis has been on maintaining the
status quo (albeit without the NTIA's involvement). Indeed, ICANN's
ultimate responsibility for the IANA Functions is a core value in the
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, so completely exiting the "IANA
Functions business" at all levels would require serious changes in
governance documents, etc., etc., which would run up against the powers
relating to changing bylaws that the CCWG contemplates.
All that said, off the top of my head, I can't recall any formal limitation
on ICANN's ability to exercise its business judgment with regard to making
major changes in this area, short of a complete exit. Maybe there are some
existing limitations that would apply, and I'm not thinking it through.
(For instance, would such a potential change trigger a PDP? Would such a
change even be a policy decision?) There may be practical limitations --
imagine the uproar if a unilateral, top-down decision was taken to
outsource the IANA Functions to the Root Zone Management Company (
http://www.rootzonemanagement.com.au/about.htm). But an "uproar" is not an
enforceable right or prohibition.
So I would agree that this is a "hole" or at least an unanticipated angle
on this issue.
Greg
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
> I am inclined to agree with this: " I do not think that an RFP should be
> initiated without an SIFR & SCWG."
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:51 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public
> comments
>
> Hi,
>
> That is a fascinating question and perhaps a hole in the solution. I do
> not think that an RFP should be initiated without an SIFR & SCWG. I have
> no real issue with the Board, or even the members if we have members,
> initiating a SIFR if they see problems no one else does.
> Perhaps this is the catch all for the wider community issue that some
> claim are not included.
>
> But to have them just decide on their own, for commercial or
> 'profitability' reasons perhaps, without community involvement seems very
> inappropriate.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 05-Jun-15 07:53, Matthew Shears wrote:
> > I agree Greg and have similar concerns to Staffan and Martin. But on
> > your second point have we specified how the board would do this:
> >
> > t/he Board could initiate an RFP or other change to IANA functions
> > operations without a SIFR/
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> > On 6/5/2015 12:48 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> >> I see this as a community power. Frankly, the Board could initiate an
> >> RFP or other change to IANA functions operations without a SIFR.
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Friday, June 5, 2015, Staffan Jonson <staffan.jonson at iis.se
> >> <mailto:staffan.jonson at iis.se>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The rationale for giving ICANN (or PTI) the ability to initiate a
> >> SIFR would allude to some general principles of transparency
> >> ('everybody should be able to check everybody'). In my view the
> >> principles behind is an interesting discussion, but not very much
> >> more. The current Hybrid model and contract governance give ICANN
> >> a lot of power, the upper hand so to say. So according to
> >> proposal ICANN will already control IANA functions operations.
> >>
> >> So who would ICANN scrutinize with its review power? Its own
> >> supporting organizations? SO:s and AC:s? Most cc:s are not even
> >> contracted with ICANN, and have few plans to become. Or would
> >> ICANN need to review its own IANA operations with an external
> >> organization? The latter would to me indicate lack of control. Or
> >> dual representation by MS community.
> >>
> >> So a practical answer is: It wouldn't need to. And I see very few
> >> possibilities of change in this area.
> >>
> >> So my answer is more along a pragmatic stream: Is this relevant
> >> for the CWG? Now? Do we really, really need to include this
> >> aspect in transition? This late? Are we limiting our
> >> deliberations to what is absolutely necessary for the transition,
> >> or are we - once the window of ooportunity is open- trying to
> >> make it a perfect world? I would say no to both.
> >>
> >> Another answer relates to direct process: The need for a review
> >> is about accountability, so any power for ICANN to review itself
> >> should preferably be discussed by CCWG (WS2).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> However what might be valid, is that ICG soon will have to handle
> >> up to three parallel mechanisms for review (one from each
> >> community within CWG). Maybe we should remind them of the
> >> potential need to coordinate review mechanisms.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Staffan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> With best regards
> >>
> >> Staffan Jonson
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mr. Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser
> >>
> >> .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN
> >>
> >> Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67
> >>
> >> staffan.jonson at iis.se
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','staffan.jonson at iis.se');> |
> >> www.iis.se/en <http://www.iis.se/en>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Från:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> ');>]
> >> *För *Martin Boyle
> >> *Skickat:*den 5 juni 2015 12:01
> >> *Till:* Matthew Shears; Milton L Mueller;
> >> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
> >> *Ämne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding
> >> public comments
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I struggle to imagine why the ICANN Board (any more than the PTI
> >> Board) would want to initiate an SIFR, in particular without the
> >> support of the community. Worse, I would feel that there would
> >> be a "cunning plan" somewhere behind such a decision and that
> >> leaves me seriously questioning why we would want this process to
> >> be triggered in such a way. No support for an SIFR, no
> >> overriding ICANN (or PTI) Board to ignore interests of the
> community.
> >>
> >> If someone can see possible reasons, I'd like to hear them. Then
> >> any trigger route could be defined (and limited) more carefully.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> ');>]
> >> *On Behalf Of *Matthew Shears
> >> *Sent:* 05 June 2015 06:17
> >> *To:* Milton L Mueller; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M
> >> regarding public comments
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But what would the thresholds be? And, currently an SIFR comes
> >> as a result of other mechanisms being exhausted as well as the
> >> IANA probems resolution process.
> >>
> >> /The Special IFR would be triggered by a supermajority vote of
> >> each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal
> >> procedures for determining supermajority. /
> >>
> >> Would we require a supermajority of only the Board, or in
> >> addition to the ccNSO and GNSO. And as a result of the
> >> mechanisms being exhausted? I would assume so.
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >> On 6/5/2015 4:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >>
> >> I can't
> >>
> >> --MM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
> >>
> >> bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces at icann.org');>] On Behalf Of
> >> Gomes, Chuck
> >>
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:02 PM
> >>
> >> To: avri at acm.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>;
> >> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M
> >> regarding public
> >>
> >> comments
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Good catch Avri and good question. Can anyone think of a
> >> reason why the
> >>
> >> ICANN Board should not be able to request an SIFR?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');>
> >> [mailto:cwg-stewardship
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship');>-
> >>
> >> bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bounces at icann.org');>] On Behalf Of
> >> Avri Doria
> >>
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:39 PM
> >>
> >> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M
> >> regarding public
> >>
> >> comments
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am part of DT-M and partly responsible for this.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But. It has a cost, which I did mention on the DT-M list:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There is currently no mechanism defined for the Board to
> initiate a SIFR.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Should there be?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04-Jun-15 16:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is DT-M's final proposed response to comment
> >> review tool item #
> >>
> >> 246 regarding AFRALO's suggestion that the PTI Board
> >> be allowed to
> >>
> >> initiate a SIFR directly: *"DT M carefully
> >> considered the
> >>
> >> recommendation to allow the PTI Board to initiate a
> >> Special IFR but
> >>
> >> decided against that while at the same time noting
> >> that the PTI Board
> >>
> >> could request that the ICANN Board consider doing
> >> so."*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If there are any questions, please let me know.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "This message (including any attachments)
> >> is intended only
> >>
> >> for the use of the individual or entity to
> >> which it is
> >>
> >> addressed, and may contain information that
> >> is non-public,
> >>
> >> proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> >> exempt from
> >>
> >> disclosure under applicable law or may be
> >> constituted as
> >>
> >> attorney work product. If you are not the
> >> intended
> >>
> >> recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> >> use,
> >>
> >> dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> >> this
> >>
> >> communication is strictly prohibited. If
> >> you have received
> >>
> >> this message in error, notify sender
> >> immediately and delete
> >>
> >> this message immediately."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> >>
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >>
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship at icann.org');>
> >>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Matthew Shears
> >>
> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> >>
> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> >>
> >> + 44 (0)771 247 2987
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy &
> > Technology (CDT)
> > + 44 (0)771 247 2987
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150605/549aca60/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list